Download - Relations Between Anxiety Sensitivity and Attachment Style Dimensions

P1: IZO

joba2004.cls (03/17/2004 v1.1 LaTeX2e JOBA document class) pp1397-joba-NY00000635 October 9, 2004 20:22

FORPROOFREADIN

GONLY

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 27, No. 3, September 2005 ( C© 2005)

Relations Between Anxiety Sensitivity and AttachmentStyle Dimensions

Margo C. Watt,1,2 Lachlan A. McWilliams,1 and Anna G. Campbell1

Accepted

This study replicated and extended the work of C. F. Weems, S. L. Berman, W. K. Silverman, andE. T. Rodriquez (2002) by investigating relations between anxiety sensitivity (AS) and attachmentdimensions in a sample of young adults. Two hundred and twenty-six undergraduate students com-pleted self-report measures including the Anxiety Sensitivity Index and the measure of adult romanticattachment used by C. F. Weems et al. (2002). In order to investigate the association between AS anda different domain of attachment, a measure of adult attachment referring to “close relationships” wasincluded. As defined by both measures, insecurely attached individuals, specifically those classified aspreoccupied and fearful (i.e., those with negative Models of Self), reported significantly higher levelsof AS than those with secure and dismissing attachment styles (i.e., those with positive Models ofSelf). Results indicated that across both measures the Model of Self attachment dimension accountedfor unique variance in AS levels beyond that contributed by trait anxiety. The Model of Othersattachment dimension had a more limited association with AS.

KEY WORDS: anxiety; sensitivity; attachment; Model of Self; Model of Others.

Anxiety sensitivity (AS) is an individual difference

P1

variable characterized by a fear of anxiety-related sensa-tions arising from beliefs that these sensations have harm-ful consequences (Reiss, 1991). AS is conceptualizedas being composed of three intercorrelated lower-ordercomponents that load on a common higher-order factor(i.e., the global AS construct; see Zinbarg, Mohlman, &Hong, 1999). These three lower-order components arecommonly referred to as Physical Concerns (e.g., fearsof anxiety-related physical sensations such as a racingheart), Psychological Concerns (e.g., fears of cognitivesymptoms of anxiety such as difficulty concentrating),and Social Concerns (e.g., fears of publicly observableanxiety symptoms such as shaking). AS has been found toplay a role in the development of panic attacks (Schmidt,Lerew, & Jackson, 1997) and to be positively associatedwith other anxiety and mood disorders (see Cox, Borger,& Enns, 1999).

1Department of Psychology, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish,NS, Canada.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department ofPsychology, St. Francis Xavier University, P.O. Box 5000, Antigonish,NS, Canada B2G 2W5; e-mail: [email protected].

Research regarding the development of AS has fo-cused on genetic factors (Stein, Jang, & Livesley, 1999),specific types of learning experiences (Watt, Stewart,& Cox, 1998), and attachment styles (Weems, Berman,Silverman, & Rodriquez, 2002). This study further inves-tigated the relationships between attachment character-istics and AS. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) positsthat primary caregivers’ patterns of responsiveness to theirchildren establish enduring expectancies regarding howothers will respond when one is in distress. Consistentand responsive care is thought to foster secure attachment(i.e., a Model of Self as valued and self-sufficient as wellas a Model of Others as caring and trustworthy); whereasless responsive and/or rejecting behavior from caregiversis thought to result in insecure attachment (i.e., negativeinternalized models of self and others). A large litera-ture has extended attachment theory to adult relationships(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

The most commonly used method of assessingadult attachment styles are self-report measures based onBartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) conceptualization ofadult attachment as being composed of two related dimen-sions referring to one’s internal Model of Self and one’sinternal Model of Others. The Model of Self dimension

191

0882-2689/05/0900-0191/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

P1: IZO


192 Watt, McWilliams, and Campbell

refers to a continuum ranging from no anxiety about re-jection or abandonment to intense anxiety about rejectionbased on beliefs of personal unworthiness. The Modelof Others dimension refers to a continuum ranging frominterpersonal trust to mistrust, avoidance of others, anddiscomfort with interpersonal closeness. Each dimensioncan be dichotomized as positive or negative yielding fourpossible combinations referred to as attachment styles.These styles include secure (positive self and positiveothers), preoccupied (negative self and positive others),fearful (negative self and negative others), and dismiss-ing (positive self and negative others) attachment styles.Although secure attachment is considered to be a pro-tective factor, insecure attachment has been found to beassociated with psychopathology (Mickelson, Kessler, &Shaver, 1997; Rutter, 1997).

Silverman and Weems (1999) first raised the possi-bility that insecurely attached individuals could be pre-disposed to misinterpret benign symptoms of anxiety asbeing catastrophic. On the basis of this suggestion, Weemset al. (2002) used two student samples (viz., high schooland undergraduate students) to test the hypothesis thatinsecurely attached individuals have higher levels of AS.Those classified as preoccupied and fearful scored sig-nificantly higher on the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI;Peterson & Reiss, 1992) than those with secure and dis-missing attachment styles. Model of Self was significantlyand positively correlated with ASI total and subscalescores (rs ranged from .27 to .41). Partial correlationsindicated that Model of Self scores could account forsignificant variance in ASI total scores and several ASIsubscales after statistically controlling for current anxi-ety symptoms and general psychological distress as mea-sured by the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90; Derogatis,1983). Correlations and partial correlations indicated thatthe Model of Others had weak and largely nonsignificantassociations with the AS variables.

Three issues not considered by Weems et al. (2002)were the focus of this study. First, Weems et al. used ameasure of romantic attachment. Although this was nota limitation, it is important to determine whether AS issimilarly associated with nonromantic forms of attach-ment. For example, Weems et al. did not find a strongassociation between Model of Others and AS, but it re-mained possible that attachment beliefs regarding closerelationships in general might be more salient than ro-mantic attachment beliefs when considering expectanciesregarding the amount of assistance others might provideduring an episode of anxiety. In order to investigate thishypothesis, a measure of adult attachment referring to“close relationships” was included. This hypothesis wouldbe supported if the Model of Others dimension of the

general attachment scale was more strongly correlatedwith AS than the Model of Others dimension of the ro-mantic attachment measure.

Second, Weems et al. (2002) suggested that inse-curely attached individuals may distort, selectively en-code, and be more fearful of anxiety-related sensationsbecause they think they are unable to help themselves orobtain help from others. However, it is possible that theseanxious and negative perceptions may be due to a moregeneral tendency to experience anxiety or negative af-fect (e.g., trait anxiety) and that the association observedbetween attachment and AS are the result of commonvariance shared among all three constructs. Viewed fromthis perspective, it was important to determine whetherattachment measures could account for unique variancein ASI scores beyond that accounted for by trait anxiety.Although Weems et al. employed the SCL-90 to statis-tically control for current anxiety symptoms and generalpsychological distress, this study employed the State TraitAnxiety Inventory—Trait (STAI-T; Spielberger, Gorsuch,Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983). Trait anxiety, as mea-sured by the STAI-T, was selected because it is the mostcommonly used construct when assessing the incrementalvalidity of AS in predicting psychopathology and poten-tial interaction effects.

Third, Weems et al. (2002) stated that their findingswere consistent with the idea that a negative Model ofOthers could lead to a belief that anxiety symptoms will re-sult in “social censure” and that “ . . . interpersonal distrustmay heighten anxiety symptom related distress becausean individual may feel they may not get help from others”(p. 166). Their correlation analyses did not provide strongsupport for this idea, but their multiple regression analysesrevealed that the interaction between anxiety symptomsand Model of Others was a significant positive predictorof ASI total scores. This finding raised the possibilitythat, among those with elevated levels of anxiety, Modelof Others would be associated with AS. This issue wasinvestigated further in this study by determining whetherthis interaction effect could be replicated and whether itapplied to each of the lower-order components of AS.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 226 students (76 men, 150 women),enrolled in introductory psychology courses at an easternCanadian university. Participants were predominantly ofEuro Canadian descent (98%) and had a mean age of19.3 years (range: 18–29 years of age).

P1: IZO


Anxiety Sensitivity and Attachment 193

Measures

Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan,Clark, & Shaver, 1998)

The ECR includes two 18-item scales measuring thetwo dimensions underlying adult attachment styles. Re-spondents are asked to indicate their level of agreementwith a series of statements concerning their relationshipexperiences using a response format ranging from 1 (dis-agree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Continuous mea-sures of Model of Others and Model of Self are created byaveraging the scores of the items from these two scales.Respectively, Brennan et al. labeled the Model of Selfand Model of Others scales as the Anxiety and Avoidancescales (i.e., their affective-behavioral names). In order tomaintain consistency with terminology used by Weemset al. (2002), the labels Model of Self and Model of Oth-ers were employed in this study with higher scores onthese scales indicating more negative models. Brennanet al.’s (1998) method of assigning individuals to one ofthe attachment categories based on their scores on the twocontinuous measures (e.g., those with positive Models ofSelf and Others are classified as securely attached) wasalso used.

Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991)

The RQ consists of four short paragraphs each de-scribing a prototypical attachment pattern (i.e., secure,fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing attachment styles)regarding close relationships in general. Participants ratethe degree to which each of the paragraphs describestheir general relationship styles. These ratings providecontinuous scores of each of the four attachment pat-terns and can be used to categorize participants into theirbest fitting attachment pattern according to their highestrated attachment description. Griffin and Bartholomew(1994) validated the four RQ attachment statements usingsemistructured attachment interviews and concluded thatthe two underlying dimensions could be reliably assessedby self-report. They also found the RQ to demonstratehigh predictive validity.

Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin &Bartholomew, 1994)

The RSQ contains 30 short statements that ask partic-ipants to rate, on a 5-point scale, the extent to which they

believe each statement best describes their feelings aboutclose relationships. The totals of the four or five itemsthat represent each attachment prototype are calculated inorder to determine scores for each attachment pattern.

For the purposes of this study, the RQ and the RSQwere combined to obtain a composite measure of adultattachment as recommended by Bartholomew and Shaver(1998). Attachment ratings on both the RQ and the RSQwere converted into standard scores (z scores), and thenthe standardized parallel RQ and RSQ scores were com-bined to form single composite scores. The compositeattachment ratings were used to obtain the Model of Selfand Model of Others attachment dimensions. Unlike theECR, higher scores on the RQ-RSQ dimensions repre-sented more positive Models of Self and Others. Indi-viduals with high Self and Others scores were classifiedas securely attached, individuals with high Self and lowOthers scores were classified as dismissing, individualswith low Self and high Others scores were classified aspreoccupied, and individuals with low Self and Othersscores were classified as fearful.

Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Peterson & Reiss, 1992)

The ASI is a 16-item measure of fear of anxiety-related signs and symptoms. Participants rate the extentto which they agree or disagree with each item pertain-ing to beliefs that anxiety symptoms are signs of harm-ful/aversive consequences by selecting one of five pointson a Likert scale that ranges from 0 (very little) to 4(very much). Considerable evidence indicates that ASI hasstrong psychometric properties (see reviews by Peterson& Reiss, 1992; Taylor, 1995). ASI subscales representingthe lower-order components of AS were created using thescoring system recommended by Zinbarg et al. (1999).The Physical Concerns subscale included eight items(items 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14), the Psychological Con-cerns subscale included four items (items 2, 12, 15, and16), and the Social Concerns subscale included four items(items 1, 5, 7, and 13). Respectively, the internal consisten-cies (Cronbach’s alphas) of the Physical, Psychological,and Social Concerns subscales in this study were .85,.76, and .55. Given the differing number of items, ASIsubscales were scored as item means (possible range:0–4).

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory—Trait Scale (STAI-T)

The STAI-T (Spielberger et al., 1983) is a 20-item self-report measure on which participants rate how

P1: IZO



anxious they “generally” feel on 4-point Likert-type scalesof relative frequency that range from 1 (almost never) to 4(almost always). Considerable evidence indicates that theSTAI-T has strong psychometric properties (see review bySpielberger et al., 1983). The STAI-T was included in thisstudy as a general measure of the tendency to experienceanxiety or negative affect in stressful circumstances.

Procedure

This study was given ethics clearance by the Depart-ment of Psychology’s Research Ethics Committee. Partic-ipants were first-year psychology students recruited fromthe Psychology Department’s subject pool who receivedcourse credit in their introductory psychology course ascompensation for their participation. The general purposeof the study was explained to potential participants. Thoseagreeing to participate provided written informed consentand were assured that they were free to decline participa-tion at any time prior to completion of the study withoutloss of the expected compensation. The questionnaireswere administered outside of class time to small groupsof 5–20 students.

RESULTS

Anxiety Characteristics

Means and standard deviations of variables of inter-est (age, ASI, and STAI-T scores) are presented in Table I.

Women scored significantly higher than did men on boththe Total ASI [Mean = 19.90 vs. 15.92, F (1, 226) = 9.37,p < .01] and ASI-Physical Concerns scores [Mean = .70vs. .65, F (1, 226) = 9.37, p < .01]. There was no sig-nificant difference between men and women in reportingof ASI-Psychological and ASI-Social concerns [Mean =1.27 vs. 0.88, F (1, 226) = 0.27, ns; and 1.73 vs. 1.66,F (1, 226) = 0.46, ns, respectively]. These results are sim-ilar to the findings of other studies using samples of uni-versity students (e.g., Watt & Stewart, 2003)

Comparison of Attachment Measures

Using ECR scores, participants were most frequentlyclassified as having a secure attachment style (39%).The remaining participants were divided approximatelyequally across the three insecure attachment dimensions(see Table I). Similar percentages were found using com-bined RQ-RSQ scores and are also reported in Table I.Chi-square analysis indicated that the classifications ob-tained from the two attachment measures were signifi-cantly related [χ2(7) = 147.91, p < .001]. Of the peoplewho were classified as secure on the ECR, 70% were clas-sified as secure on the RQ-RSQ. Of the people who wereclassified as fearful on the ECR, 46% were classified asfearful and 36% were classified as preoccupied on the RQ-RSQ. Of the people who were classified as preoccupiedon the ECR, 49% were classified as preoccupied and 35%were classified as fearful on the RQ-RSQ. Of the people

Table I. Descriptive and ANOVA Results for Both Attachment Measures

N % M F Age ASI STAI-T

SecureECR 88 39 23 65 19.0a (1.3) 14.7 (7.9)a,b 34.4 (7.7)a

RQ-RSQ 72 37 20 52 19.2 (1.3) 15.4 (8.7)a 35.5 (8.3)a

FearfulECR 46 20 20 26 20.0a (2.5) 23.6 (9.0)a,c 46.4 (10.1)a,c

RQ-RSQ 38 20 11 37 19.6 (2.1) 19.4 (10.2) 44.1 (8.5)a,c

PreoccupiedECR 52 23 12 40 19.2 (2.1) 22.4 (9.1)b,d 45.4 (8.9)b,d

RQ-RSQ 46 23 14 32 19.5 (2.7) 22.8 (8.1)a,b 46.3 (9.3)b,d

DismissingECR 39 18 21∗ 18 19.4 (1.3) 15.5 (6.9)c,d 38.1 (7.5)c,d

RQ-RSQ 40 20 21∗ 19 19.5 (2.0) 17.2 (7.5)b 37.4 (9.3)c,d

TotalECR 225 100 76 149 19.4 (1.8) 18.4 (9.1) 40.0 (9.8)RQ-RSQ 196 100 66 130 19.4 (1.9) 18.3 (9.2) 40.0 (9.9)

Note. ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory; RQ-RSQ = Relationship Questionnaire-Relationship Scales Questionnaire. Identical subscripts within columns indicate significant differ-ences on Tukey’s contrasts.∗Indicates significant difference between males and females (p < .05).

P1: IZO



who were classified as dismissing on the ECR, 59% wereclassified as dismissing and 22% were classified as secureon the RQ-RSQ.

As expected, the ECR Model of Self scale had astrong negative correlation with the corresponding scalefrom the RQ-RSQ [r = −.75, p < .001] and the ECRModel of Others scale had a strong negative correla-tion with the corresponding RQ-RSQ scale [r = −.58,p < .001]. The ECR Model of Self scale had a signif-icant positive association with the complementary ECRModel of Others scale [r = .19, p < .01] and a non-significant association with the RQ-RSQ Model of Othersscale [r = −.09, ns]. The ECR Model of Others scalehad a significant positive association with the RQ-RSQModel of Self scale [r = .28, p < .001]. This pattern offindings indicates that the corresponding scales from thetwo measures share common variance and that the twoattachment dimensions (Model of Self and Others) arerelatively distinct from each other.

Anxiety Measures and Attachment Categories

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant differ-ence in age across the four ECR attachment categories[F (3, 221) = 3.48, p < .05]. Post hoc analyses utiliz-ing the Tukey–Kramer modification of Tukey’s HonestlySignificant Difference Test (Tukey HSD) procedure in-dicated that participants classified as fearful were sig-nificantly older than participants classified as secure.There was a significant effect of attachment category onASI scores [F (3, 224) = 17.88, p < .001] and STAI-Tscores [F (3, 219) = 28.71, p < .001]. Descriptive statis-tics across attachment categories are presented in Table I.Post hoc analyses indicated that participants who wereclassified as fearful or preoccupied scored significantlyhigher on both the ASI and STAI-T than participants

classified as either securely attached or dismissing. Chi-square analyses revealed a significant difference betweenattachment categories in terms of gender [χ2(3) = 8.64,p < .05]. An examination of standardized residuals indi-cated that men were disproportionately represented in thedismissing category (std. res. = 2.2).

Similar analyses with the RQ-RSQ scores revealedno significant difference in age across the four attachmentcategories [F (3, 193) = 0.44, ns], but significant effectsof attachment category were found for ASI [F (3, 195) =6.99, p < .001] and STAI-T scores [F (3, 190) = 17.72,p < .001]. Participants classified as preoccupied scoredsignificantly higher on the ASI than participants classi-fied as either secure or dismissing. Participants classifiedas fearful or preoccupied scored significantly higher onthe STAI-T than participants classified as either secure ordismissing. Chi-square analyses revealed a significant dif-ference between attachment categories in terms of gender[χ2(3) = 8.06, p < .05] with men being disproportion-ately represented in the dismissing category (std. res. =2.1; see Table I).

Anxiety Measures and Attachment Dimensions

Correlation coefficients were calculated to examinethe association between AS and the continuous attachmentdimensions assessed by the ECR and RQ-RSQ. Thesefindings are presented in Tables II and III, respectively,and indicated that for both attachment measures, Modelof Self was consistently associated with the AS vari-ables. Across both attachment measures, Model of Othershad more limited associations with the AS variables. Tofurther explore relations between AS and attachment, ameasure of trait anxiety was included in order to deter-mine whether attachment dimensions could account forunique variance in AS beyond that contributed by the gen-eral tendency to experience anxiety. Partial correlations

Table II. Zero-Order and Partial (Controlling for STAI-T) Correlations Between ASI Scoresand ECR Attachment Dimensions

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Model of Self — .06 .29∗∗∗ .18∗∗ .21∗∗ .34∗∗∗2. Model of Others .20∗∗ — −.04 .24∗∗∗ .06 .073. ASI-Physical .40∗∗∗ .05 — .41∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ .91∗∗∗4. ASI-Psychological .43∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗ .50∗∗∗ — .33∗∗∗ .64∗∗∗5. ASI-Social .27∗∗∗ .11 .44∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗ — .59∗∗∗6. ASI-Total .49∗∗∗ .19∗∗ .92∗∗∗ .72∗∗∗ .60∗∗∗ —

Note. STAI-T = State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Trait Scale; ASI = Anxiety SensitivityIndex; ECR = Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory. Partial correlations controllingfor STAI-T above the diagonal.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

P1: IZO



Table III. Zero-Order and Partial (Controlling for STAI-T) Correlations Between ASI Scoresand RQ-RSQ Attachment Dimensions

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Model of Self — .06 −.17∗∗ −.11 −.16∗∗ −.20∗∗2. Model of Others .19∗∗ — .13∗ −.02 .02 .073. AS-Physical −.32∗∗∗ .03 — .41∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ .92∗∗∗4. AS-Psychological −.41∗∗∗ −.17∗ .55∗∗∗ — .32∗∗∗ .64∗∗∗5. AS-Social −.24∗∗∗ −.03 .44∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗ — .58∗∗∗6. ASI-Total −.40∗∗∗ −.06 .92∗∗∗ .76∗∗∗ .60∗∗∗ —

Note. STAI-T = State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Trait Scale; ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index;RQ-RSQ = Relationship Questionnaire–Relationship Scales Questionnaire. Partial correlationscontrolling for STAI-T above the diagonal.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

(statistically controlling for STAI-T) between ASI scoresand the continuous attachment dimensions are also pre-sented in Tables II and III. For both measures, partialcorrelations indicated that the attachment dimensions didaccount for significant variance in ASI total and subscalescores after statistically controlling for STAI-T. In partic-ular, the Model of Self dimension remained significantlyassociated with ASI Total, Physical, Psychological, andSocial Concerns subscales after controlling for trait anxi-ety. However, with the ECR only one of the partial correla-tions involving the Model of Others dimension remainedsignificant with about 6% of the variance in PsychologicalConcerns scores accounted for by scores on the Model ofOthers dimension. Similarly, with the RQ-RSQ, only oneof the partial correlations involving the Model of Oth-ers dimension remained significant with about 2% of thevariance in Physical Concerns scores accounted for by theModel of Others dimension.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses WithAttachment Dimensions

Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses wereconducted to investigate whether attachment beliefs re-garding self and others could account for unique vari-ance in the prediction of ASI total and subscale scoresbeyond that contributed by the demographic variables(age, gender) and trait anxiety (STAI-T), and to examinewhether the interaction between the attachment dimen-sions and trait anxiety were associated with the AS vari-ables. This approach represented a replication of Weemset al.’s (2002) analyses, as well as an extension by in-cluding ASI subscales as criterion variables. In all cases,demographic variables and STAI-T scores were enteredin Steps 1 and 2, respectively, followed by a series ofseparate steps which included one of the attachment di-mensions (Step 3) followed by its interaction with STAI-T

scores (Step 4).3 These regression models are summarizedin Tables IV to VII.

With regard to the ECR measures, the inclusion ofthe Model of Self variable significantly improved all ofthe regression models. The R2-change values indicatedthat the inclusion of the Model of Self variable accountedfor an additional 9% of variance in ASI total scores andalso accounted for additional variance in AS-Physical,-Psychological, and -Social Concerns subscales (respec-tively, 7, 3, and 4%). In the case of the RQ-RSQ measures,the inclusion of the Model of Self variable significantlyimproved the regression models for each criterion exceptAS-Psychological Concerns. The R2-change values indi-cated that the inclusion of the Model of Self variable ac-counted for an additional 3% variance in ASI total scoresand 3% of the additional variance in both the AS-Physicaland -Social Concerns subscales, respectively. The ECRModel of Others dimension was examined in a similarmanner and was found to have a significant positive asso-ciation with AS-Psychological Concerns only, accountingfor 3% of additional variance. The RQ-RSQ Model ofOthers dimension was not significantly associated withASI total or subscale scores. Across both measures, theinteraction terms were not significantly associated withthe any of the criterion variables.

DISCUSSION

This study replicated the findings of Weems et al.(2002) and extended their findings with the inclusion of

3Typically, interaction terms are highly correlated with their constituents,a situation that can produce multicollinearity and unstable regressionestimates unless the terms have been centered. Centering refers to theconversion of deviation scores so that each variable has a mean of zero(Aiken & West, 1991). The Aiken and West approach of centering (or“de-meaning”) involves subtracting the mean of each variable from thevalues for each observation. This approach was used in this study andproduced results identical to original analyses.

P1: IZO



Table IV. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting ASI Total Scores

Step Model R2 Change in R2 F p< B

1. Age .00 .00 0.05 ns .021. Gender .04 .04 8.93 .01 .212. STAI-T .21 .17 44.53 .001 .413. ECR Model of Self .24 .09 26.94 .001 .354. ECR Model of Self × STAI-T .24 .00 0.73 ns −.293. ECR Model of Others .22 .01 1.12 ns .074. ECR Model of Others × STAI-T .22 .00 0.05 ns .003. RQ-RSQ Model of Self .30 .03 7.99 .01 −.214. RQ-RSQ Model of Self × STAI-T .30 .00 0.35 ns .153. RQ-RSQ Model of Others .22 .00 1.09 ns .074. RQ-RSQ Model of Others × STAI-T .22 .00 0.01 ns .02

Note. ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index; STAI-T = State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Trait Scale; ECR =Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory; RQ-RSQ = Combined z scores for the RelationshipQuestionnaire and Relationship Scales Questionnaire.

a measure of adult attachment referring to close relation-ships in general (i.e., RQ-RSQ). Categorical analyses re-vealed that most respondents were classified similarly onboth attachment measures with the greatest convergencefound with the secure and dismissing categories. For ex-ample, 70% of individuals classified as secure with theECR were classified as secure with the RQ-RSQ. Corre-lations between the scales of each measure revealed thatthe corresponding scales from the two measures sharedcommon variance and that the two attachment dimen-sions (i.e., Models of Self and Others) were relativelydistinct from each other. This pattern of findings is con-sistent with Bartholomew and Shaver’s (1998) findingsthat adult attachment measures assess a core set of re-lational tendencies, but that domain-specific attachmentpatterns (e.g., romantic vs. close relationships) can besubstantially different. Given the attachment measures

were not redundant with each other, investigating the re-lationships between both types of attachment and AS waswarranted.

Most participants (39%) in this study were classi-fied as having a secure attachment style with the re-mainder distributed relatively equally across the threeinsecure attachment dimensions. These proportions areconsistent with earlier findings using the same measures(e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Shaver,1998), but contrast with those of Weems et al. (2002) whoreported fewer individuals with secure and dismissing at-tachment (33 and 10%, respectively) and more individualswith fearful and preoccupied attachment (25 and 32%,respectively) in their college sample. These differencesmight be attributable to demographic differences, suchas age or ethnicity. Weems et al.’s undergraduate samplewas slightly older than the present sample (21.7 years vs.

Table V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting ASI-Physical Scores

Step Model R2 Change in R2 F p< β

1. Age .00 .00 0.17 ns −.031. Gender .06 .06 13.56 .001 .262. STAI-T .15 .09 20.71 .001 .293. ECR Model of Self .22 .07 19.03 .001 .324. ECR Model of Self × STAI-T .23 .01 1.29 ns −.413. ECR Model of Others .14 .00 0.28 ns −.044. ECR Model of Others × STAI-T .15 .00 0.39 ns .003. RQ-RSQ Model of Self .18 .03 6.88 .01 −.204. RQ-RSQ Model of Self × STAI-T .18 .00 0.72 ns .223. RQ-RSQ Model of Others .16 .01 3.29 ns .124. RQ-RSQ Model of Others × STAI-T .16 .00 0.26 ns −.12

Note. ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index; STAI-T = State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Trait Scale; ECR =Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory; RQ-RSQ = Combined z scores for the Relationship.Questionnaire and Relationship Scales Questionnaire.

P1: IZO



Table VI. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting ASI-Psychological Scores


1. Age .00 .00 1.07 ns .071. Gender .01 .01 0.14 ns .032. STAI-T .32 .31 99.33 .001 .563. ECR Model of Self .35 .03 7.88 .01 .194. ECR Model of Self × STAI-T .35 .00 2.52 ns .523. ECR Model of Others .35 .03 10.59 .001 .194. ECR Model of Others × STAI-T .36 .01 3.17 ns .483. RQ-RSQ Model of Self .33 .01 2.40 ns −.114. RQ-RSQ Model of Self × STAI-T .34 .02 1.83 ns −.323. RQ-RSQ Model of Others .32 .00 0.01 ns −.014. RQ-RSQ Model of Others × STAI-T .33 .01 0.03 ns .04


19.4 years), and older individuals in the present samplewere significantly more likely to be classified as havinga fearful attachment style. In addition, most of Weemset al.’s participants were Hispanic (61%) and AfricanAmerican (19%), whereas participants in the present sam-ple were predominantly Euro Canadian (98%).

Consistent with both attachment theory and Weemset al.’s (2002) research, individuals classified as being ei-ther securely attached or dismissing reported lower levelsof AS than individuals classified as either fearful or pre-occupied. The pattern of results was similar across bothattachment measures but, with the measure of close rela-tionships, differences in ASI scores between the fearfulgroup and both the secure and dismissing groups werenot statistically significant. Consistent with the roman-tic attachment findings, the close relationship Model ofSelf was strongly associated with AS and its lower-order

components, whereas the associations involving Model ofOthers were more limited.

It had been hypothesized that attachment beliefsregarding close relationships in general might be moresalient than romantic attachment beliefs when consider-ing expectancies regarding the amount of assistance othersmight provide during an episode of anxiety. The similar-ity of the findings across attachment measures did notsupport this hypothesis. However, one noteworthy dif-ference was observed. The correlation analyses revealednegative views of others in romantic relationships wereassociated with fears of the psychological symptoms ofanxiety (i.e., AS-Psychological Concerns). In contrast,when close relationship attachment was considered, a neg-ative view of others was associated with fears of physicalanxiety symptoms (i.e., AS-Physical Concerns). Thesefindings suggest the possibility that within the intimacy

Table VII. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting ASI-Social Scores


1. Age .00 .00 0.07 ns .021. Gender .00 .00 0.21 ns .032. STAI-T .03 .03 7.24 .01 .183. ECR Model of Self .07 .04 8.54 .01 .234. ECR Model of Self × STAI-T .07 .07 0.26 ns −.203. ECR Model of Others .04 .01 0.62 ns .064. ECR Model of Others × STAI-T .04 .01 0.17 ns .133. RQ-RSQ Model of Self .06 .03 4.94 .05 −.184. RQ-RSQ Model of Self × STAI-T .06 .00 1.20 ns .303. RQ-RSQ Model of Others .03 .00 0.26 ns .044. RQ-RSQ Model of Others × STAI-T .04 .01 0.09 ns −.08


P1: IZO



of a romantic relationship the more private and less visi-ble components of anxiety may be more salient; whereas,within close relationships in general individuals may dis-trust others to respond appropriately to the more visi-ble manifestations of anxiety. It is noteworthy that one’sperception of others may evoke different concerns (e.g.,AS-Psychological vs. AS-Physical) in different contexts(romantic vs. general relationships). This apparent speci-ficity of AS components to particular contexts of learn-ing has been demonstrated in other studies. For example,both MacPherson, Stewart, and McWilliams (2001) andWatt and Stewart (2003) found AS-Psychological Con-cerns to play a unique role in relations between parentaldrinking behavior in childhood and anxiety outcomes inadulthood.

Weems et al. (2002) found the Model of Self dimen-sion to predict AS levels after controlling for both currentanxiety symptoms and general psychological distress asmeasured by the SCL-90. To examine this further, thisstudy investigated the role of trait anxiety as measured bythe STAI-T. Results were consistent with Weems et al.’s(2002). For both attachment measures, a unique relation-ship between the attachment dimensions and AS levelswas identified beyond what could be attributed to a gen-eral propensity to experience fear or negative affect. Forboth the romantic attachment and close relationships mea-sures, the Model of Self dimension remained significantlyassociated with ASI total scores and all three subscalesafter accounting for the variance contributed by trait anx-iety. However, for both measures, only one of the partialcorrelations involving the Model of Others dimension re-mained significant with approximately 6% of the variancein AS-Psychological Concerns accounted for by the ECRModel of Others dimension and only 2% of the variancein AS-Physical Concerns scores accounted for by the cor-responding RQ-RSQ dimension.

Finding that attachment variables account for uniquevariance in AS beyond that contributed by measures ofanxiety has now been demonstrated in separate studiesutilizing two different operationalizations of anxiety. Theconsistency of findings across the two studies was notsurprising given the similarity between state (i.e., currentsymptoms) and trait anxiety. The results of these studiesprovide support for the important role of interpersonalfactors (e.g., attachment characteristics) in shaping ex-pectancies about one’s ability to manage stress, includingstress related to somatic sensations. Assuming continu-ity between childhood and adult attachment styles, thesefindings raise the possibility that negative experiencesthat play a role in the development of insecure attach-ment also contribute to the development of elevated ASlevels.

The relationship between Model of Others and ASlevels was of particular interest in this study. Weems et al.(2002) had initially hypothesized that a negative Modelof Others could play a role in the development of highAS but their findings provided little support for this idea.For example, the Model of Others variable was not sig-nificantly associated with ASI scores in their high schoolsample and accounted for only 2.5% of the variance inASI scores in their university sample. However, they didfind the interaction between Model of Others and anxietyto significantly predict ASI scores, raising the possibilitythat this dimension could have a particular role to playin the development of AS among more highly anxiousindividuals. This study attempted to replicate this findingand to investigate whether more general (vs. romantic)attachment perceptions would be more salient when con-sidering the amount of assistance others might provideduring an episode of anxiety. Results, however, revealedno significant interaction between Model of Others andtrait anxiety in predicting ASI total or subscale scoreswith either attachment measure.

Several limitations of this study need to be con-sidered when interpreting the results. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes drawing conclu-sions about the direction of relations between attachmentexperiences and the development of AS. Prospective lon-gitudinal research is required to determine whether inse-cure attachment, in particular attachment characterized bya negative Model of Self, is predictive of high AS or in-stead that elevated levels of AS foster insecure attachmentbeliefs. Although the focus of this study has been on theformer relationships, it is also possible that children withheightened sensitivities to bodily sensations might com-promise the attachment process by demanding more at-tention and parental resources than less sensitive children.Second, the attachment dimensions accounted for 24% ofthe variance in ASI total scores, but the multiple regres-sion analyses indicated that the attachment dimensionsaccounted for a much smaller portion of unique variancein ASI scores (i.e., 3–9% depending on the attachmentmeasure and ASI score considered). These modest effectsizes suggest the need for caution before overstating therole of attachment beliefs in the development of high AS.Nonetheless, finding a role for attachment is consistentwith the growing body of literature attesting to the impor-tance of early childhood experiences in the developmentof AS (e.g., Watt et al., 1998; Watt & Stewart, 2000, 2003).Further research is required to determine the extent of thatrole and to further delineate the relative roles of one’s per-ception of self versus one’s perception of others. To date,studies have investigated relations between AS and attach-ment in nonclinical samples only. Replicating the findings

P1: IZO



from these studies with clinical samples would enhanceexternal validity and could inform treatment approaches toanxiety-related and other disorders for which high AS is arisk.

In summary, this study successfully replicated andextended the findings of Weems et al. (2002). Attachmentinsecurity in both romantic and nonromantic relation-ships, particularly insecurity characterized by a negativeModel of Self (fearful and preoccupied), was associatedwith elevated levels of AS and AS components. The Modelof Others played a more limited role in relation to AS. Thisstudy provides further support for the role of interpersonalfactors in the development of AS and suggests the need forcontinued investigation into parental practices and child-hood learning experiences in the development of such riskfactors for psychopathology.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andA1interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles amongyoung adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.

Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of assessing adultattachment: Do they converge? In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guil-ford.

Bowlby, J. (1988). The origins of attachment theory. In J. Bowlby (Ed.),A secure base: Parent child attachment and healthy human devel-opment (pp. 20–38). New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-ment of adult attachment: An integrative interview. In J. A. Simpson& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships(pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.

Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and per-sonality disorders: Their connections to each other and to parentaldivorce, parental death, and perceptions of parental caregiving.Journal of Personality, 66(5), 835–878.

Cox, B. J., Borger, S. C., & Enns, M. W. (1999). Anxiety sensitivity andemotional disorders: Psychometric studies and their theoretical im-plications. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety sensitivity: Theory, research,and treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 115–148). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Derogatis, L. R. (1983). Symptom Checklist-90: Administration, scoringand procedures manual-II. Towson, MD: Clinical PsychometricResearch.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love as conceptualized as anattachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 511–524.

MacPherson, P. S. R., Stewart, S. H., & McWilliams, L. A. (2001).Parental problem drinking and anxiety disorder symptoms in adultoffspring: Examining the mediating role of anxiety sensitivity com-ponents. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 917–934.

Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attach-ment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 73, 1092–1106.

Peterson, R. A., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety Sensitivity Index Man-ual (2nd ed.). Worthington, OH: International Diagnostic SystemsReiss (1991).

Reiss, S. (1991). Expectancy theory of fear, anxiety, and panic. ClinicalPsychology Review, 11, 141–153.

Rutter, M. (1997). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Ret-rospect and prospect. In L. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker (Eds.), At-tachment and psychopathology (pp. 17–36). New York: Guilfordpress.

Schmidt, N. B., Lerew, D. R., & Jackson, R. J. (1997). The role of anxietysensitivity in the pathogenesis of panic: Prospective evaluation ofspontaneous panic attacks during acute stress. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 106, 355–364.

Silverman, W. K., & Weems, C. F. (1999). Anxiety sensitivity in children.In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety sensitivity: Theory, research, and treat-ment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 239–268). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs,G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Stein, M. B., Jang, K. L., & Livesley, W. J. (1999). Heritability ofanxiety sensitivity: A twin study. American Journal of Psychiatry,156, 246–251.

Taylor, S. (1995). Anxiety sensitivity: Theoretical perspectives andrecent findings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 243–258.

Watt, M., Stewart, S. H., & Cox, B. J. (1998). A retrospective study ofthe origins of anxiety sensitivity. Behaviour Research and Therapy,36, 505–525.

Watt, M. C., & Stewart, S. H. (2000). Anxiety sensitivity mediates therelationships between childhood learning experiences and elevatedhypochondriacal concerns in young adulthood. Journal of Psycho-somatic Research, 49, 107–118.

Watt, M. C., & Stewart, S. H. (2003). The role of anxiety sensitivity com-ponents in mediating the relationship between childhood exposureto parental dyscontrol and anxiety symptoms in adulthood. Journalof Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 25, 167–176.

Weems, C. F., Berman, S. L., Silverman, W. K., & Rodriquez, E. T.(2002). The relation between anxiety sensitivity and attachmentstyle in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Psychopathol-ogy and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 159–168.

Zinbarg, R. E., Mohlman, J., & Hong, N. N. (1999). Dimensions ofanxiety sensitivity. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety sensitivity: The-ory, research, and treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 83–113).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

P1: IZO


Queries to Author:

A1: Pub: Please note that this reference is not cited in the text.

201

P1: IZO


Queries to Publisher:

P1: Pub: Please provide article accepted date.

202